DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application 18/895,139 filed on September 24th, 2024.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 is pending and herein considered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 09/24/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CRR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
A Terminal Disclaimer filed on September 24th, 2024 has been recorded and approved on September 24th, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1; claim 1 calls for a computing platform; however, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware element. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system contains “a server system.” In light of the specification (pg. [28]), the server system can be all construed as software per se since they do not embody any hardware. Because the elements of claim 1 is interpreted as merely software and the claim lacks any physical device or machine, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-9; claims 2-9 do not recite any hardware element to resolve the issue in the independent claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 are also non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (Anderson), U.S. Pub. Number 2011/0126275, in view of Kesler, U.S. Patent Number 10,585,720.
Regarding claim 1; Anderson discloses a computing platform implemented using a server system, the computing platform being configurable to cause:
initiating a communication session with a user, the user having a user account associated with a workflow data object implemented in an on-demand application hosted by the computing platform, the workflow data object being configured to represent a plurality of operations associated with the user and an organization (par. 0097; the intelligent workload management method may be used to manage approval workloads created in response to service requests; an operation includes creating an approval workload in response to a receiving a request for a service from any suitable user, application, system, or other entity having an identity in the workload management system; for instance, the request may specify any components needed to configure the service for a particular task (e.g., a raw machine hosting an operating system and storage may be requested to deploy a particular application in the raw machine, an existing service may be requested to specify any suitable combination of components that can deploy the application, etc.).);
identifying a verified status indicator used by at least one of the plurality of operations represented in the workflow data object, the verified status indicator comprising a verified credential associated with at least one of the plurality of operations (par. 0116; identify any authentication credentials that the authentication tokens represent; the workload engine references the identified authentication credentials to determine whether the identities for the requesting entity have proper authorization for the requested service.);
identifying a transfer operation associated with the verified status indicator and identifying a target entity based, at least in part, on the user account (par. 0121; identify a current operational state for any resource in an actual model of the information technology infrastructure to determine the operational state for the infrastructure; for instance, the discovered operational state may describe various services, applications, workloads, or other resources running in the infrastructure, including identities, operational dependencies, or other relationships between the various services, applications, workloads, or other resources with various parameters (e.g., business value, usage, cost, security, risk, performance, etc.)); and
implementing the identified transfer operation based, at least in part, on the identified target entity (par. 0129; employ various identity data abstractions maintained in the federated identity vault to enrich discovery in the workload management system with workload entitlements (e.g., the identity data abstractions may include the single sign-on authentication tokens).).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose further associated with a vaccination status of the user, the plurality of operations being defined by operation data objects and coupling data objects defining dependencies between the operation data objects.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kesler discloses method and system for executing application programming interface (API) requests based on union relationships between objects comprising further associated with a vaccination status of the user, the plurality of operations being defined by operation data objects and coupling data objects defining dependencies between the operation data objects (Kesler: col. 8, lines 20-40, col. 12, lines 28-40; transmit the plurality of subqueries generated for the one or more data objects to the appropriate services (e.g., to an identified data store or other service that maintains each data object) in order to execute the API query and return a result of the API query to a requesting client application executing on client device; identifying subqueries associated with one or more data objects based on dependencies between the one or more data objects; for instance, the subqueries to be resolved against a common service that are coalesced into a single subquery may be subqueries to resolve data objects at a given execution level of the execution plan.).
Regarding claim 2; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 1, wherein Anderson further discloses the transfer operation comprises transmitting the verified status indicator to the target entity (Anderson: par. 0034; the identity information can be composed and transformed through the access manager or the synchronization engine with the resulting identity information providing authoritative statements for represented entities that span multiple authentication domains within or beyond boundaries for information technology infrastructure.).
Regarding claim 3; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 1, wherein Anderson further discloses the transfer operation comprises receiving the verified status indicator from the target entity (Anderson: par. 0114; the authorization token may be referenced to obtain authoritative statements that indicate whether to authorize or deny any suitable request received from the entity associated with the authorization token.).
Regarding claim 4; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 1, wherein Anderson further discloses the verified status indicator comprises a verified credential generated in response to the user completing at least one of the plurality of operations (Anderson: par. 0112; the workload identities, which may be generated from authentication tokens that define various credentials or permissions assigned to any suitable user, application, system, service, resource, or other entity having an identity managed in the workload management system.).
Regarding claim 5; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 4, wherein Anderson further discloses the verified status indicator is generated based on an interaction between a mobile communications device and a local device located at a physical location of the user (Anderson: par. 0058; permit dynamic changes to the physical resources in the infrastructure which provide stability and predictability for the infrastructure.).
Regarding claim 6; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 1, wherein Anderson further discloses each of the plurality of operations has an associated operation data object (Anderson: par. 0040; particular objects may be managed in the workload management system, such as individual users, groups of users, physical resources, virtualized resources, or any other suitable object or resource in the infrastructure.).
Regarding claim 7; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 6, wherein Anderson further discloses the verified status indicator is received via an application program interface (API) defined, at least in part, by at least one operation data object (Anderson: par. 0084; provide a standard interface designed to enable dynamic collaboration for end users that simplify interaction with complex systems, which may provide organizations with opportunities for more productive and agile workloads.).
Regarding claim 8; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 1, wherein Anderson further discloses the computing platform is further configurable to cause: updating a selected operation within the workflow data object in response to implementing the transfer operation (Anderson: par. 0117; update identities managed in an existing services, or a another suitable request to manage identities associated with the approved service request.).
Regarding claim 9; Anderson and Kesler disclose the computing platform of claim 8, wherein Anderson further discloses the computing platform is further configurable to cause: updating a representation of the selected operation to identify an occurrence of the transfer operation (Anderson: par. 0109; updating the infrastructure model provides information that the workload management system can reference to provide lifecycle management for services provisioned and deployed in the infrastructure; for instance, various lifecycle rules and control information may be used to respond to variable computing demands, changes, and unexpected virtual machines may introspectively monitor and report on health of the hosted services.).
Regarding claim 10; Claim 10 is directed to a method which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 11-16; Claims 11-16 are directed to the method of claim 10 which have similar scope as claims 2-9. Therefore, claims 11-16 remain un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17; Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 18-20; Claims 18-20 are directed to the computer program product which has similar scope as claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 remains un-patentable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOI V LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5087. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on 571-272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHOI V LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436